https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94492 ITAT held that the Addl./JCIT(A) erred in computing a delay of 4209 days from 28.01.2012, as there was no evidence that the intimation u/s 143(1) or any demand/recovery notice was ever served on Assessee X. ITAT observed that processing on 28.01.2012 could not have been pursuant to CBDT Circular No.13/2016 and, in absence of proof of service, concluded that limitation could not run from that date. Consequently, dismissal of the appeal on limitation without examining merits was held unsustainable. On the substantive issue of status change from "any other AOP" to "LLP" without opportunity, the matter was remanded to the Jurisdictional AO to re-examine the correct status after hearing Assessee X. Appeal allowed for statistical purposes. en-us Tue, 25 Nov 2025 08:55:41 +0530 Tue, 25 Nov 2025 08:55:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94492 ITAT held that the Addl./JCIT(A) erred in computing a delay of 4209 days from 28.01.2012, as there was no evidence that the intimation u/s 143(1) or any demand/recovery notice was ever served on Assessee X. ITAT observed that processing on 28.01.2012 could not have been pursuant to CBDT Circular No.13/2016 and, in absence of proof of service, concluded that limitation could not run from that date. Consequently, dismissal of the appeal on limitation without examining merits was held unsustainable. On the substantive issue of status change from "any other AOP" to "LLP" without opportunity, the matter was remanded to the Jurisdictional AO to re-examine the correct status after hearing Assessee X. Appeal allowed for statistical purposes. Highlights Income Tax Tue, 25 Nov 2025 08:55:41 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94492